Taxing the dirty fuels of today,and investing the money raised, could ultimately pave the way for a sustainable future and a stronger economy

In the 21st Century, the USA, and all other countries, find themselves more than ever at the mercy of our own climate. For decades humanity has pumped out fossil fuels to power the great cogs of industry and commerce, in a world increasingly growing smaller due to their usage. Carbon taxes have been used in Europe and other areas, and shown to be relatively effective; although long term results are not yet truly available. However, by stimulating green alternative energy sources, via a carbon tax, US economics can be stimulated in a way that aids all other businesses. In becoming a "green" fueled economy, the US can lead the way in green alternatives. From wind, solar, tidal and hydroelectric, to research in new and more efficient ways of generating electricity, the US has a need, and a responsibility, to grow its economy in ways that are not shown to be aiding in climatic destruction. In the long run, carbon taxes can aid US businesses by cutting carbon release into the atmosphere, and thus cut short damages done to economic infrastructure by rising sea levels, acute or "freak" weather systems and the like. this would be safeguarding our economy against oil shortages due to political or economic changes overseas, as well as supply relating to costing, political instability and terrorism. A "Plan B" approach to our energy economy is surely needed, and a carbon tax could be a very sustainable way to support alternate energy sources, and become a leading world economy in this respect. Investing in so called clean sources of energy, will mean a protected, prosperous US economy in the future, and a cleaner more sustainable economy in the short term.

No, the scope of this tax is too vague

Clearly, this is a wide open field of irrational thoughts and to allow it to exist under the premise of one question is fated to be indiscriminately mis-handled. A prime example of how US citizens are lead to the slaughter as if they were lambs is this very question. I will only begin by stating that establishing a carbon tax, which would either tax those emissions directly or tax fuels that release CO2 when they are burned (fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas) should for be for environmental reasons and not that of economic stimulation.

No, the U.S. should not issue a carbon tax to stimulate the economy.

No, the U.S. should not issue a carbon tax to stimulate the economy. United States citizens already have to pay an enormous amount of tax to a vast number of things. They should not have to pay a carbon tax, even if it is to stimulate the economy. There are so many other things we could do to encourage economic growth.

Taxes don't stimulate an economy

Taxes presume that the government knows best how to spend the money it receives. Tax credits (the opposite of a tax) presume that the recipients of the credit know best how to spend the money. The government has historically shown little ability to improve the economy. At best, the government keeps folks from starving in the bad times. It usually requires something specific -- a war, a new technology, even a new fad -- to ultimately turn the economy around.